Chris, I do think you are reading to much into this, but if you have your heart set on seperates, then by all means go for it... I've used just 2 different Denon's throught the years since I got my Axioms and they sound great, play as loud as anyone would care to listen. Most likely if you did a true blind A/B test you would not see any difference, no matter how good you think your ears are.

With that said, I have also used many seperates, Emotiva (which personally would never own againn), Odyssey (one of my favorites), and Outlaw (currently own) and will most likely be my last amp.

The Axiom amps look attractive, but for the price tag I can't afford to get the same power for 7 channels compared to my Outlaw, and will put this A/B badboy up against them any day.

I would consider looking at their newly released pre and amps, and not focus on Emo, but that is just my history opinion. Or, she get a nice AVR.

Since both companies have a 30 day trial, it may be worth your while to order both and make a decision that way.

As for differences between amps, of course they sound different; just because some people can't hear a difference, it doesn't make it so. All that matters is if you can.

There are many blind test proving that some people can hear a difference; for example this one, done with 500 people. Even in the test JohnK pointed, there is a "small print" of sorts at the end of page 5 stating that the results don't mean that a particular listener might be ale to distinguish one amplifier form another.

By that token, I can suggest not wasting your money on either amps you're looking at; there is a amp - Behringer EP4000 - that sells for $380 and is capable of 1,400W into 4 Ohms per channel, putting both Emotiva and Axiom amps to shame (and many, many others, more expensive). It's got LOTS of power, it's cheap, and since there is no difference between amps I don't really see why anyone would buy anything else.It can also be bridged, delivering a whooping 4,000 W into 4 Ohms!

I was not satisfied with the way my Denon sounded vs the Pioneer Elite that it replaced, until I went with the one position mic calibration option, skipping mic positions 2 and up. Now I can't tell the difference.

I was not satisfied with the way my Denon sounded vs the Pioneer Elite that it replaced, until I went with the one position mic calibration option, skipping mic positions 2 and up. Now I can't tell the difference.

I should've been more careful with my posts... I'm sorry; instead of using blanket statements like all amps are different, I should've pointed out that:

1. In an ideal amp world yes... they all should sound exactly the same as the purpose of an amp is simply to amplify the sound. However, I don't believe we are at that point yet.

2. Amps/Receivers in the same class (or in very close classes) are very difficult to tell apart, or impossible in some/most cases.

Originally Posted By: Murph

If you are using calibration on either, then it is not a true comparison as you are manipulating the sound from the baseline.I get your point though. Just pointing that out for the OP.

In the end, all we really need to be is happy.

And you are correct Sir... on both accounts; indeed, whatever makes you happy is a LOT more important than what someone else says, numbers, charts, tests etc.

I also believe that listening to music is far more important than what equipment is used, as well as that there many other components that are more important in terms of SQ than an amp in a stereo chain.

Okay, the posts from yesterday indicate that some clarification is still needed. First, the point has never been that there's no difference between amplifiers. I almost always list the requirements for audibly flat frequency response and inaudibly low noise and distortion when this comes up. If an amplifier doesn't meet one or more of these requirements it will sound different. However modern audio technology makes audibly transparent amplification the norm, even in moderately priced receivers. Independent lab results show the almost uniformly extremely low deviations from perfect performance that's found in these units.

I studied that 1989 Stereophile blind test which is linked quite a few years ago, and it's quite instructive. It's curious, however, to see it cited as evidence of audible differences when the tests failed to show statistically significant results. Stereophile selected a solid state($750)and tube($4900)amplifier "as different in design as possible" apparently anticipating positive results. The 505 participants in a same/different single-blind test returned 52.3% correct responses. This may not seem very impressive, but because of the large number of results it would be statistically significant if compared to 50% guessing. However, as Dr. Carlson and the two following letters in Part 4 point out, there was an inclination to vote different(62% of the tests with the same amplifier were voted different!)and since about 54% of the tests were in fact with different amplifiers(rather than 50/50 for a valid same/different test)this skewed the results and made them drop to a statistically insignificant figure.

Although the overall results were yet another failure to show audibility, apparently some claim that the fact that some participants scored extremely well(6 of the 505 scored 7/7)"proved" that they heard real differences. This isn't the way the statistical significance of blind tests works, however; in all such tests with a large number of participants a small number of participants return very high scores(e.g., some coin flippers doing 9 or 10 out of 10 heads), possibly simply by chance. If time is available, the high scorers should be given supplemental tests to investigate the reliability of the previous results. An example of this is found in this paper, where in sections 4. and 5. a participant showing significant initial test results failed to show the same after supplemental testing.

John, what I struggle with with your assertions is the fairly common report of people adding outboard amps of higher power than their receivers and saying that their speakers now have more oomph or that they're fuller. I fully understand the volume matching aspect of it and am a strong believe in the power of the placebo effect, but the reports are pretty common.

I would really like to see a dbt between a fairly low power but respectable receiver (say a midrange Denon, a 2311 or the like) and the same receiver with a big honking amp (say an Axiom A1500 or some big Krells) and the same receiver with a smallish amp (say an Emotiva UPA-2 or 5).

This would give us far more real world data than a _SINGLE_ article--and need I remind you of the difficulties of supporting oneself with a single scientific article on a subject, particularly when that single article flies in the face of other knowledge?

It would also be of more practical use to those of us who are not single guys with good jobs and more disposable income than we know what to do with.

So it boils down to this for me:

1. Does adding an amp to an already adequate receiver make a difference, and if so, how much does one have to spend in order for that amp TO make a difference?

John, what I struggle with with your assertions is the fairly common report of people adding outboard amps of higher power than their receivers and saying that their speakers now have more oomph or that they're fuller. I fully understand the volume matching aspect of it and am a strong believe in the power of the placebo effect, but the reports are pretty common.

I would really like to see a dbt between a fairly low power but respectable receiver (say a midrange Denon, a 2311 or the like) and the same receiver with a big honking amp (say an Axiom A1500 or some big Krells) and the same receiver with a smallish amp (say an Emotiva UPA-2 or 5).

This would give us far more real world data than a _SINGLE_ article--and need I remind you of the difficulties of supporting oneself with a single scientific article on a subject, particularly when that single article flies in the face of other knowledge?

It would also be of more practical use to those of us who are not single guys with good jobs and more disposable income than we know what to do with.

So it boils down to this for me:

1. Does adding an amp to an already adequate receiver make a difference, and if so, how much does one have to spend in order for that amp TO make a difference?

2. Is the power rating relevant in such a discussion?

3. At what volume does the difference appear?

How would such a test be set up? If the different amps were level matched I can't see how there would be a noticeable difference unless the chosen level was above the rated output of the receiver, in which case no one would want to listen to it for long. Then again I wouldn't volunteer my speakers for such a test...